6 ms·

Calling MJ "clearly the best" is insane. MJ had a much better supporting cast, one of the greatest coaches of all time, and didn't have to play the most dominan

Calling MJ "clearly the best" is insane. MJ had a much better supporting cast, one of the greatest coaches of all time, and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals. The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami.

jimmy1 8y ago
This is common argument that comes up in the MJ debate and easily defeated. Besides, you can apply the same "supporting cast" argument to Lebron. Lebron pioneered the approach to forming super teams to chase championships in the modern NBA. That garbage is now rampant thanks to him. (Remember when David Stern blocked the trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers due to "competition concerns?" Boy that seems laughable now) (All this aside -- Lebron's a great dude, great role model, etc)
- Zimahl 8y ago
  Lebron has been on one 'super team', the Heat. The Cavs were never even close to a super team, and the Lakers aren't shaping up to be either. I grew up watching Michael Jordan but I think the game is much more difficult now. It's much faster, and a little more physical. Adding Lebron to any team makes them a finals contender overnight. MJ didn't have much luck once he left Chicago. MJ wasn't as dominant after his prime, Lebron will be dominant long after his because of his size.
- philwelch 8y ago
  The Chris Paul trade was blocked for "basketball reasons" because the NBA temporarily owned New Orleans at the time and didn't want to utterly destroy the value of the franchise before finding a new owner.
philwelch 8y ago
I think there are a lot of good points in favor of LeBron, but I still think MJ wins out, if only slightly. > MJ had a much better supporting cast To what degree were Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman "much better" than Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love, or Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and later Ray Allen? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely bullish on Dennis Rodman, but none of Jordan's teams ever had an All-Star big man, and consistently defeated teams that did (New York, Utah, Seattle, Detroit). That was especially abnormal in the late 80's and early 90's. > one of the greatest coaches of all time This is the biggest point in LeBron's favor, though Eric Spoelstra is a little underrated. There's a lot of overlap between the greatest coaches of all time (Popovich, Jackson, Auerbach, Riley) and the greatest players of all time (Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Russell, Magic, Kareem), and LeBron is the biggest exception to that. At the same time, the pre-Phil Jackson MJ was dubbed "God disguised as Michael Jordan" by Larry Bird and was clearly a wasted talent in search of a coach, team, and system that would make the best use of him. And the biggest criticism of Phil Jackson is that he's never succeeded without having either Michael Jordan, Shaq, or Kobe Bryant playing for him. Aside from the frankly bizarre end of his tenure as GM of the Knicks, Phil Jackson's greatest strength was the ability to manage the egos of passionate, erratic superstars. > and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals Michael Jordan was the centerpiece of "the most dominant team ever" for two sets of three consecutive finals. (And frankly, if you want to talk about "the most dominant team ever", you have to look at the 1957-1969 Boston Celtics, who won all but two titles during that span.) > The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami. This is a pretty good point. I think removing Michael Jordan from the league entirely led to greater parity overall, and the 1993-94 season had a lot of indications of that (three conference semifinals going to seven games, the 8th seed in the West knocking out the 1st seed in the first round, only one team below 20 wins, only one team above 60 wins). The Bulls without MJ were worth a second round exit, which isn't nothing, but a Cavs team with Kyrie and Love would have done just as well if not better, and the 2016 Heat also bounced back to a second round exit two years after LeBron left.
goatlover 8y ago
Then again, MJ never had a 2011 Finals. He also never had his counterpart at the same position when FMVPs. Jordan was the best in every single finals he showed up in. Jordan was pretty much the best in every playoff series he played in, where the couple exceptions might be Shaq or Larry Bird. And MJ has the highest career playoff scoring average along with being tied with Wilt for career scoring average. Opposing players feared and respected Michael Jordan in a way they don't Lebron.
- waterside81 8y ago
  To piggyback on this, MJ played in a very different NBA. Today's NBA is much more offense friendly. No hand-checking, much less physical play allowed. Jordan would be shooting 50 FTs a game if he played in today's NBA.
  - southphillyman 8y ago
    Jordan was a below avg 3 pt shooter. He may have gotten to the line frequently today but he'd also be relying on the his classic mid range shot which is the most inefficient in today's NBA.
    - greedo 8y ago
      Players adapt to the rules in place and how they're enforced. MJ would have thrived in today's league, as would Magic, Larry, Nique, and Charles.
    - goatlover 8y ago
      Russell Westbrook just averaged back to back triple doubles and won an MVP last season while being a below avg 3 pt shooter. Jordan was a lot more efficient scorer than Westbrook, while being just as explosive. Today's spacing, thanks to all that 3 point shooting, would be a huge boost to Jordan. He doesn't have to worry about all the rim protectors guarding the paint that existed during his day.
- southphillyman 8y ago

jimmy1 8y ago

This is common argument that comes up in the MJ debate and easily defeated. Besides, you can apply the same "supporting cast" argument to Lebron. Lebron pioneered the approach to forming super teams to chase championships in the modern NBA. That garbage is now rampant thanks to him. (Remember when David Stern blocked the trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers due to "competition concerns?" Boy that seems laughable now) (All this aside -- Lebron's a great dude, great role model, etc)

Zimahl 8y ago
Lebron has been on one 'super team', the Heat. The Cavs were never even close to a super team, and the Lakers aren't shaping up to be either. I grew up watching Michael Jordan but I think the game is much more difficult now. It's much faster, and a little more physical. Adding Lebron to any team makes them a finals contender overnight. MJ didn't have much luck once he left Chicago. MJ wasn't as dominant after his prime, Lebron will be dominant long after his because of his size.
philwelch 8y ago
The Chris Paul trade was blocked for "basketball reasons" because the NBA temporarily owned New Orleans at the time and didn't want to utterly destroy the value of the franchise before finding a new owner.

philwelch 8y ago

I think there are a lot of good points in favor of LeBron, but I still think MJ wins out, if only slightly. > MJ had a much better supporting cast To what degree were Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman "much better" than Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love, or Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and later Ray Allen? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely bullish on Dennis Rodman, but none of Jordan's teams ever had an All-Star big man, and consistently defeated teams that did (New York, Utah, Seattle, Detroit). That was especially abnormal in the late 80's and early 90's. > one of the greatest coaches of all time This is the biggest point in LeBron's favor, though Eric Spoelstra is a little underrated. There's a lot of overlap between the greatest coaches of all time (Popovich, Jackson, Auerbach, Riley) and the greatest players of all time (Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Russell, Magic, Kareem), and LeBron is the biggest exception to that. At the same time, the pre-Phil Jackson MJ was dubbed "God disguised as Michael Jordan" by Larry Bird and was clearly a wasted talent in search of a coach, team, and system that would make the best use of him. And the biggest criticism of Phil Jackson is that he's never succeeded without having either Michael Jordan, Shaq, or Kobe Bryant playing for him. Aside from the frankly bizarre end of his tenure as GM of the Knicks, Phil Jackson's greatest strength was the ability to manage the egos of passionate, erratic superstars. > and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals Michael Jordan was the centerpiece of "the most dominant team ever" for two sets of three consecutive finals. (And frankly, if you want to talk about "the most dominant team ever", you have to look at the 1957-1969 Boston Celtics, who won all but two titles during that span.) > The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami. This is a pretty good point. I think removing Michael Jordan from the league entirely led to greater parity overall, and the 1993-94 season had a lot of indications of that (three conference semifinals going to seven games, the 8th seed in the West knocking out the 1st seed in the first round, only one team below 20 wins, only one team above 60 wins). The Bulls without MJ were worth a second round exit, which isn't nothing, but a Cavs team with Kyrie and Love would have done just as well if not better, and the 2016 Heat also bounced back to a second round exit two years after LeBron left.

goatlover 8y ago

Then again, MJ never had a 2011 Finals. He also never had his counterpart at the same position when FMVPs. Jordan was the best in every single finals he showed up in. Jordan was pretty much the best in every playoff series he played in, where the couple exceptions might be Shaq or Larry Bird. And MJ has the highest career playoff scoring average along with being tied with Wilt for career scoring average. Opposing players feared and respected Michael Jordan in a way they don't Lebron.

waterside81 8y ago
To piggyback on this, MJ played in a very different NBA. Today's NBA is much more offense friendly. No hand-checking, much less physical play allowed. Jordan would be shooting 50 FTs a game if he played in today's NBA.
- southphillyman 8y ago
  Jordan was a below avg 3 pt shooter. He may have gotten to the line frequently today but he'd also be relying on the his classic mid range shot which is the most inefficient in today's NBA.
  - greedo 8y ago
    Players adapt to the rules in place and how they're enforced. MJ would have thrived in today's league, as would Magic, Larry, Nique, and Charles.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    Russell Westbrook just averaged back to back triple doubles and won an MVP last season while being a below avg 3 pt shooter. Jordan was a lot more efficient scorer than Westbrook, while being just as explosive. Today's spacing, thanks to all that 3 point shooting, would be a huge boost to Jordan. He doesn't have to worry about all the rim protectors guarding the paint that existed during his day.
southphillyman 8y ago